You're absolutely right and I'm absolutely wrong. Last year's SB winner was the Giants who were ranked 32 out of 32 in running. the year before it was the Packers who were ranked 24 out of 32 in rushing. Before that, the Saints who were 6 out of 32 in rushing. Before that, it was the Steelers who were 23 out of 32 in rushing.

What do those teams have in common? All those teams led the NFL in rushing.

Well, there you go. There's our problem. Screw the pass. Let's lead the NFL in rushing so we can win the SB.

Dexter_Sinister wrote up a really nice article last year about it and how it correlated with Super Bowl wins historically.

As for correlation between rushing success and winning, there is NONE WHATSOEVER. I checked the stats. It had as much correlation as how many times a Vikings fan picks his nose vs how successful people in the East Coast are at catching salmon.

Just a note. The giants, were last in rushing because they sucked earlier in the season, but then they went on their run, they were rushing for 109/gm. When the Packers went on their run in 2010. they were rushing for 103/gm.

Saints were not that good, but they also had the run game pick up at the end.

All three had a passing game, a run game and a defense all playing their best at the end.

You're absolutely right and I'm absolutely wrong. Last year's SB winner was the Giants who were ranked 32 out of 32 in running. the year before it was the Packers who were ranked 24 out of 32 in rushing. Before that, the Saints who were 6 out of 32 in rushing. Before that, it was the Steelers who were 23 out of 32 in rushing.

What do those teams have in common? All those teams led the NFL in rushing.

Well, there you go. There's our problem. Screw the pass. Let's lead the NFL in rushing so we can win the SB.

Dexter_Sinister wrote up a really nice article last year about it and how it correlated with Super Bowl wins historically.

As for correlation between rushing success and winning, there is NONE WHATSOEVER. I checked the stats. It had as much correlation as how many times a Vikings fan picks his nose vs how successful people in the East Coast are at catching salmon.

zombie, c'mon man! You can't use stats like that when Ahmad Bradshaw and Brandon Jacobs were hurt most of the season. They both came back and were a big part of their run to winning the SB after their team went 9-7 regular season. They totaled 26 carries for 110 yds v. NE to win it all. For NE, conversely, Green-Ellis had just 10 carries for 44 yds. Welker had 2 carries for 21.

Go on believing we don't need 20+ carries per game to win. Whatever. I disagree.

We rank #20 overall. Oddly enough, both ATL and AZ have more attempts than we do (ranking #18 and 20 to our #22), helping to keep the opposing D honest. Take away Rodgers' scrambles and I would bet we are nearer to the bottom of the NFL.

Passer Rating Differential??? You don't think that has something to do with rushing to keep opposing defenses honest? I sure do.

As my research said, you still have to run the ball. Yes. That much we agree on.

However, you don't have to be good at it.

So yes, you should have rushing attempts. But as unintuitive as this sounds, the total yards don't matter.

Agree with what you said 99%--total yards aren't as important as rushing attempts, but I wouldn't say total yards don't matter.

The more success you have running the ball the more you'll distract the D from your passing game. If you're running it for 40 yds you'll get their attention a little more than if you're running it for -2, -4 per carry...

Agree with what you said 99%--total yards aren't as important as rushing attempts, but I wouldn't say total yards don't matter.

The more success you have running the ball the more you'll distract the D from your passing game. If you're running it for 40 yds you'll get their attention a little more than if you're running it for -2, -4 per carry...

They need to respect the run. If you're only getting 1, 2 yards per carry when they're loading up the box, oh well. If they're in nickel or dime and you can't run it for more than 2 or 3 on a regular basis, they don't NEED to respect it. You don't need to be great at the run, just okay. And in order to do that on a regular basis, you need to run it more than a dozen times per game.

They need to respect the run. If you're only getting 1, 2 yards per carry when they're loading up the box, oh well. If they're in nickel or dime and you can't run it for more than 2 or 3 on a regular basis, they don't NEED to respect it. You don't need to be great at the run, just okay. And in order to do that on a regular basis, you need to run it more than a dozen times per game.

That's the weird thing is you don't even have to be OK. You just have to run the ball.

You could actually have a mediocre rushing attack and win it all. Has happened time and time again.

That's why I used the word "unintuitive." You'd think by the way I'm worded the last thing I said that I'd be smoking crack, but my research shows otherwise. You only need attempts. Yards really don't matter.

My man Donald Driver

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)

2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. [tt] [mm] [ar]

This goes along what Shawn and I have been trying to get through to you for a couple years now. The attempts are what keeps a defense honest. A solid 60/40 pass/run ratio is very good for an offense as it opens up a lot of opportunities. Right now the Packers are being manhandled by a two high safety scheme because they are not worried about the second level being reached by a RB or a slant pass.

I'd rather see James Starks than Alex Green running the ball, even though Green has the potential to break one, he's often stuffed at the line for a loss. Starks nearly always gains at least a yard or two.

Until this team figures out how to be more balanced offensively and the QB drops his ego and takes the 5 yard easy out over the 25 yarder into double coverage ... mediocre is all we'll see.

"I do not think there is any thrill that can go through the human heart like that felt by the inventor as he sees some creation of the brain unfolding to success... such emotions make a man forget food, sleep, friends, love, everything." - Nikola Tesla

This goes along what Shawn and I have been trying to get through to you for a couple years now. The attempts are what keeps a defense honest. A solid 60/40 pass/run ratio is very good for an offense as it opens up a lot of opportunities. Right now the Packers are being manhandled by a two high safety scheme because they are not worried about the second level being reached by a RB or a slant pass.

I'd rather see James Starks than Alex Green running the ball, even though Green has the potential to break one, he's often stuffed at the line for a loss. Starks nearly always gains at least a yard or two.

Until this team figures out how to be more balanced offensively and the QB drops his ego and takes the 5 yard easy out over the 25 yarder into double coverage ... mediocre is all we'll see.

I wish I could applaud twice!

I realize rule changes have made it much easier to pass in today's NFL, but that doesn't mean you throw out the basic tenants of the game.

Pound the fricken football +25 attempts by your RBs (QB scrambles don't count here) and I would say we win 9 out of 10 games. Especially with what that does to a defense, against our passing game. Without it, we clearly see we have no passing game.

I'm not saying that it's false, but multiple people keep saying that all you need to do is run the ball, yards don't matter a lick and that it's unintuitive but true. I see people dropping stats about poor rushing teams winning big, but does anybody have some examples of truly ineffective rushing teams (< 3 YPC) being successful? It's definitely unintuitive but I'm no more of an expert than anyone else here (and less of an expert than many), I'd just like a more in-depth explanation of WHY it works with some specific examples.

For example, if you're averaging 2 YPC 8 games in, why wouldn't an opposing defense want to play with an emphasis on passing every down unless it's an obvious running situation? Focus on nullifying your opponent's strengths, not their weaknesses. Yeah, if they're running it 20-25 times a game they might average 3-4 a carry if you don't respect the run but let them try to beat you on the ground and shut them down through the air. 75-100 yards on the ground isn't going to kill you if they're ineffective passing the ball and get minimal benefit from running the play action.

I'm not saying that it's false, but multiple people keep saying that all you need to do is run the ball, yards don't matter a lick and that it's unintuitive but true.

I had to stop reading here to clarify this. No one is saying yards mean nothing at all. What is being said is you don't need an elite (Adrian Peterson) RB to keep the defense honest. You need attempts, attempts that garner positive yardage. Even if you get 2 yards per attempt, that changes 1st and 10 to 2nd and 8 or 2nd and 6 to 3rd and 4.

Ideally you want a running back who gets 4 yards per attempt, never fumbles and has very sound protection while being above average at receiving out of the backfield.

JAMES STARKS WILL BE THAT GUY!!

:-"

"I do not think there is any thrill that can go through the human heart like that felt by the inventor as he sees some creation of the brain unfolding to success... such emotions make a man forget food, sleep, friends, love, everything." - Nikola Tesla

I'm not saying that it's false, but multiple people keep saying that all you need to do is run the ball, yards don't matter a lick and that it's unintuitive but true. I see people dropping stats about poor rushing teams winning big, but does anybody have some examples of truly ineffective rushing teams (< 3 YPC) being successful? It's definitely unintuitive but I'm no more of an expert than anyone else here (and less of an expert than many), I'd just like a more in-depth explanation of WHY it works with some specific examples.

For example, if you're averaging 2 YPC 8 games in, why wouldn't an opposing defense want to play with an emphasis on passing every down unless it's an obvious running situation? Focus on nullifying your opponent's strengths, not their weaknesses. Yeah, if they're running it 20-25 times a game they might average 3-4 a carry if you don't respect the run but let them try to beat you on the ground and shut them down through the air. 75-100 yards on the ground isn't going to kill you if they're ineffective passing the ball and get minimal benefit from running the play action.

Here you go Porforis:

One example I found, Arizona, a division leader, ranking dead last in ypc at 2.8

Their receiving O is nothing special, ranking 22 to our 13. Passing O ranking 25 to our 15. To me, that says they are running just enough and winning with defense & STs. Running the football helps both the passing game and the defense. While their passing game is suspect at QB, they have some good WRs. They lost their #1 RB to injury last week too.

Statistically, this isn't telling us too much, but it does say something, and while outranking us in attempts, they are in fact last in YPC, and 4-1, beating SEA, NE, PHI and MIA while losing to STL.

Their running game is atrocious. I can't figure out how they won all of those outside of D, STs and huge miscues by their opponents. This has to be the weakest team of the front runners offensively.

This goes along what Shawn and I have been trying to get through to you for a couple years now. The attempts are what keeps a defense honest. A solid 60/40 pass/run ratio is very good for an offense as it opens up a lot of opportunities. Right now the Packers are being manhandled by a two high safety scheme because they are not worried about the second level being reached by a RB or a slant pass.

I'd rather see James Starks than Alex Green running the ball, even though Green has the potential to break one, he's often stuffed at the line for a loss. Starks nearly always gains at least a yard or two.

Until this team figures out how to be more balanced offensively and the QB drops his ego and takes the 5 yard easy out over the 25 yarder into double coverage ... mediocre is all we'll see.

If you want to win an argument with me, you have to put up FACTS. Opinion doesn't cut it. But you guys have also been ignoring the research I've been doing which got annoying too. I've been saying all along that you don't need an elite RB and actually, an elite RB hurts the team.

I've been doing football research for a few years and honing in my knowledge. When my hypothesis doesn't look right, I change it until it's right. I found that rushing rankings have absolutely no bearing on a team's post-season success.

I also predict trends and thought that teams will eventually go 65/35. This remains to be seen though. It looks like as of 2012, 60/40 is the sweet spot. Maybe 65/35 is in 2015 or so. Or maybe the rules will change again and we'll see more running. Hard to predict the future. As of 2012, it looks like we should be at 60/40.

My man Donald Driver

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)

2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. [tt] [mm] [ar]

If you want to win an argument with me, you have to put up FACTS. Opinion doesn't cut it. But you guys have also been ignoring the research I've been doing which got annoying too. I've been saying all along that you don't need an elite RB and actually, an elite RB hurts the team.

I've been doing football research for a few years and honing in my knowledge. When my hypothesis doesn't look right, I change it until it's right. I found that rushing rankings have absolutely no bearing on a team's post-season success.

I also predict trends and thought that teams will eventually go 65/35. This remains to be seen though. It looks like as of 2012, 60/40 is the sweet spot. Maybe 65/35 is in 2015 or so. Or maybe the rules will change again and we'll see more running. Hard to predict the future. As of 2012, it looks like we should be at 60/40.

There really isn't any argument at all. It's pretty much common sense. Yes, an elite RB is not necessary, however an elite QB helps a lot more. You ignoring the point we're making is annoying. 60/40 is exactly what I said in the quoted post.

I think one side is saying look forward and the other side is saying look straight ahead.

Against the Colts, Packers had two drives that were 30 seconds or less (one was 19 freaking seconds). THIRTY SECONDS OR LESS! You run it three times, that eats up 2+ minutes right there. Do that on both drives, that's nearly FIVE MINUTES less that the Colts have to catch up!

Between those six runs, it could be 1 yard per attempt and it still serves a good purpose ... EATING CLOCK to preserve the lead!

I am all for putting teams away, all for it. But when you're skipping your underneath guy or the TE/RB open in the flat, you're playing Madden football and that's just stupid! They have two deep safeties and you're still going to throw it deep instead of the shallow guy who will get you 5+ yards? ARGH pisses me off!!

"I do not think there is any thrill that can go through the human heart like that felt by the inventor as he sees some creation of the brain unfolding to success... such emotions make a man forget food, sleep, friends, love, everything." - Nikola Tesla

McCarthy's whole pass heavy attack, saying in essence (and I know there is a quote out there where he actually said this) "we don't need to run" is good only when his short passes are - in fact - high percentage. If we ignore the short passes, or if we aren't catching those, then the whole plan is destined to fail.

I believe we had 2 goals coming into this season from a game management/personnel standpoint:

1. Add pass rush2. Control the clock better with our offense

We are currently tied with two other teams at #1 in the NFL for sacks, with 18. I was surprised to see that.

Our OL on the other hand, is ranked 2nd to last at #31 in the NFL, allowing 21 sacks thus far this year. We are 15th in Total Points, and 21st in TOP.

We are also ranked #1 in the NFL for penalty yds at 390. These last 4 stats are very telling, as stats go... pretty much place us at middle of the road with our 2-3 record, and our defense ranked #16 both pass and run D. Based on our expectations for the season, this is mediocre, indeed.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of short passes in leiu of run plays. Puts too much at risk with time of possession and your QB's safety. That is a game of high stakes poker IMO, one we should not be playing if we expect to reach our 2nd goal of this season, to control the clock. Not to mention, how long will Rodgers last at this pace? TJ Lang publicly called out the pass heavy play calling for a reason.

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.